Clearly the problem here lies with Whites' carnivalesque preoccupation - rooted in White supremacism - with their own skin color. Yet, this obsession is contradictory. No White ever asked whether he would wish to be born Black ever answered "Yes", yet they wish to darken their skins in a dangerous manner because they realize how anemically unattractive white skin is. However, they lack the necessary melanin to make this a safe practice and, eventually, Caucasian skin becomes leathery and even more distinctly ugly than before. This relates to the problem that White skin shows the ravages of aging far more clearly than anyone else's.
Sunbathing is pure narcissism and results from a culture that worships its own physical appearance to such an extent that it will risk contracting skin cancer for the sake of it. This is reminiscent of the practice of Italian ladies in the dark ages of using the poison belladonna to enhance their eyes for cosmetic effect. The differences being that today we also have such pointless inventions as potentially-dangerous breast implants to contend with.
Even though the article is clearly about skin color (a favorite topic of White supremacists) it never refers to the fact that the activity described is only of value to Whites - in their vain attempts to make their skin more attractive to look at. White women are obsessed with issues that barely register with Black women - laughter lines and wrinkles generally, for example - because these become less and less apparent the darker ones skin is.
This article is clearly only about Whites, yet this fact is nowhere mentioned. The fools who damage their skin by sunbathing are referred to as Britons, when Black Britons would not engage in such stupid behavior – as they do not engage in soccer hooliganism. The article implies that all British citizens are White - a delusion that the likes of the BNP share - and so proves the article itself racist. The article features no Black Britons because it could not - the very idea is ridiculous. When this is pointed out, Whites run for cover and blame the messenger for their own White supremacism. When Whites accept that they often do strange things that nobody else does, and which make them look rightly foolish, their limited culture will have moved on and gotten over it.
The truth is that Whites will always complain when their behavior is criticized on the basis of their skin color; while having no compunction, themselves, in criticizing others on the same basis when there is no evidence to so do. By not mentioning the existence of Black Britons in an article about skin color, you refuse to admit that there is something to learn from Blacks. Namely, do not waste time darkening your skin since there is no advantage whatsoever in doing so - unless the change is to be permanent and/or one wishes to migrate to a hotter country. (Both would be examples of creating a permanent, cosmetic, built-in personal sunscreen – cheaper in the long run than forking out for creams and lotions every year.)
For the above reasons I do not need to peruse the terms and conditions of the Website since your complaint reveals them: "No upsetting Whites because they have thin skins that cannot stand exposure to the revealing rays of the Sun" - both literally and figuratively. The question is: Why are Whites sensitive when they are criticized for doing something that only Whites ever do? The fact Whites do not want this pointed out to them (& that the relevant article never mentions that White strangeness is the result of individual choice as well as cultural mores) shows that Whites are happy to criticize the symptom - sun-bathing - but not the cause - White supremacist narcissism. This acontextualism is typical of a culture that refuses to give itself the honest self appraisal necessary to really solve any problems Whites possess. Whites loathe criticism of Whites - even when they have originated the cause of it.
All of the above is objectively factual but you resent the truth which, for a newspaper, is lamentable. It is your article that is offensive, not my comment. Have the humility to admit it.
Only Whites believe that Black men actually belong to Black women - or that anyone belongs to anyone: The Legacy of plantation slavery dies hard. This question is merely the obverse of such questions as the equally absurd "How do European American women really feel about Negro women dating their men?"
There is no such thing as sex addiction - only loneliness. As usual with Whites they claim that anything they do that they know is psychopathological lifestyle choice is the product of human nature - and not just their own. That, like the disease-based claims surrounding alcoholism, it is something they cannot refrain from doing because of their physiological makeup. This is a very convenient means of escaping personal responsibility and, like those who prefer receiving benefits to working for a living, effectively makes them wards of the state - since the state must pick up the pieces in terms of STDs, unwanted pregnancies, abortion, etc. Whites invented psychiatry precisely to claim their psychological problems were the product of human nature rather than their own precisely to avoid growing up and taking adult responsibility. Whites want to valorize and validate their own psychosis and neurosis in the cloak of pseudo-science. White culture is endemically-empty and so play-acting of this kind – and then effectively boasting about it afterwards – is inevitable.
Joyce WALTERS' bone fides are not listed here and so she is almost certainly an unqualified charlatan.
Given the well-known White supremacism of German culture, such comments are hardly surprising.
This is more White-Man's voodoo wherein the failings of WHites are blamed on their victims in order to justify their continuing victimhood. There is no desire here to accept others for what they are but to control others and make tyhem in their own image. This is why Whites have the highest divorce rates in the world because they believe that the purpose of marriage is to change - allegedly for the better - the other person. It is really about command and control and fear of spontaneity and intimacy.
Multiculturalism can never work so long as Whites remain so resolutely Institutionally Racist.
Whites discovering a Black actor they do not fear and only using him to represent Blackness in order to avoid employing Blacks they do.
Only Whites can talk this kind of shit and be taken seriously!
So are paedophiles and rapists but one does not hear Whites saying this since they do not wish to openly admit their political amorality in so doing.
Of course the BNP are a fact of life – that is not the issue. The issue is what is to be done about them since they are anti-democrats in a democracy. To say otherwise is to side with the BNP. It is the stupidity of White politicians which is also a fact of life that needs dealing with.
what is to be debated with White supremacists? They want Blacks to agree to accepting second-class citizenship which Blacks are not going to accept so there is nothing to discuss. I would love to see White parents engaging in discussion with paedophiles about access to their children. no sane person ever engages in a discussion from which they can gain nothing and lose something so such a debate is pointless. If Whites do not already know that White supremacism is mad, then they are: There is nothing to be exposed via debate here. such a debate can only lead to Auschwitz since it implicitly accepts that White supremacists have a point that should be argued: Thereby valorizing their point-of-view by definition. it is not a debate White supremacists want but the debate itself since it gives them the implicit credibility that they otherwise lack. it is not the BNP who are a fact of life but White supremacism that is when it claims Blacks must tolerate White supremacists - at the risk to their lives - while Whites can engage in the nonsense of free speech that does not endanger their lives. Whites, after all, openly refuse to deal with terrorists that threaten their lives even though freedom fighters have a valid point-of-view and debate is the only realistic means of dealing with them.
The debate about White supremacism has already been had and ended in 1945 with the murder of 6,000,000 Jews. the debate has now moved on to what is to be done about White supremacists not what is to be done with them. Whites still cannot move on from the nineteenth-century Darwinist mind-set that sees Blacks as closer to the simian than the human. what Whites want is to appease White supremacists - as they did Hitler - which can only serve White interests. the demand for a debate with White supremacists is only ever made by White supremacists since they are the only group advantaged by such a debate - which is precisely why they want it. When Whites debate with those who threaten their children (eg, paedophiles), Blacks will consider debating with thoise who threaten their (eg, White supremacists).
Why do Whites wish to become as dark as the people they would not wish to be born looking like?
Why do Whites wish to become as dark as the people they would not wish to be born looking like?
